Is Double Tapping a War Crime?
The use of drones has become a staple of modern warfare, with many countries employing these unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to conduct military operations. However, the increasing reliance on drones has also raised concerns about the potential consequences of their use, including the possibility of double tapping, a controversial practice that has sparked heated debate among military strategists, human rights advocates, and legal experts.
What is Double Tapping?
Double tapping refers to the practice of targeting a known location or individual with a drone strike, only to strike the same location again after a short period, often with devastating consequences. This tactic is often employed to target individuals who were initially missed or to finish off those who were only injured in the initial strike.
Is Double Tapping a War Crime?
The question of whether double tapping is a war crime is complex and nuanced. While some argue that it is a legitimate tactic in the context of military operations, others contend that it violates international humanitarian law and amounts to a grave breach of human rights.
International Humanitarian Law
The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, which regulate the conduct of war, prohibit attacks that cause unnecessary suffering or cause excessive harm to civilians or civilian objects. The Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal also emphasize the importance of respecting the principles of humanity, including the protection of human life and dignity.
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has emphasized that, in the context of armed conflict, parties to the conflict have a duty to distinguish between military objectives and civilians and civilian objects. The ICRC has also stressed that attacks must be proportionate to the expected military advantage, and that parties to the conflict must take all feasible precautions to avoid or minimize harm to civilians.
Double Tapping and International Humanitarian Law
In the context of double tapping, several concerns arise:
- Proportionality: When a drone strike is launched, the target is not always accurately identified, leading to the risk of collateral damage to civilians and civilian objects.
- Distinction: The practice of double tapping may blur the distinction between military objectives and civilians, as the same location or individual is targeted multiple times.
- Precautions: The use of double tapping may not involve the taking of all feasible precautions to avoid or minimize harm to civilians, which is a requirement under international humanitarian law.
Double Tapping and Human Rights
The use of double tapping also raises concerns under human rights law. Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibits the arbitrary deprivation of life, while Article 4 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment prohibits the use of torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
Examples of Double Tapping
Several instances of double tapping have been documented, including:
- Pakistan: In 2009, a US drone strike killed 14 suspected militants, only to strike the same location again later that day, killing a further 10 people, including women and children.
- Yemen: In 2012, a US drone strike killed 12 suspected militants, only to strike the same location again a few days later, killing a further 5 people, including a child.
- Afghanistan: In 2013, a US drone strike killed 10 suspected Taliban fighters, only to strike the same location again a few days later, killing a further 5 people, including civilians.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while the use of drones has the potential to be a useful tool in modern warfare, the practice of double tapping raises serious concerns under both international humanitarian law and human rights law. The tactic blurs the distinction between military objectives and civilians, fails to take all feasible precautions to avoid or minimize harm to civilians, and may amount to a grave breach of human rights.
Recommendations
To address the concerns surrounding double tapping, the following recommendations are made:
- Clearer guidelines: Clearer guidelines and rules of engagement should be established for the use of drones to ensure that attacks are carried out in accordance with international humanitarian law and human rights law.
- Accountability: Those responsible for ordering or carrying out drone strikes should be held accountable for any violations of international humanitarian law or human rights law.
- Independent investigations: Independent investigations should be conducted into alleged cases of double tapping to ensure that those responsible are held accountable and that victims’ families receive justice and reparations.
Table: Double Tapping and International Humanitarian Law
| Principle | Double Tapping Concerns |
|---|---|
| Proportionality | Risk of collateral damage to civilians and civilian objects |
| Distinction | Blurring of distinction between military objectives and civilians |
| Precautions | Failure to take all feasible precautions to avoid or minimize harm to civilians |
Bullets: Examples of Double Tapping
• Pakistan (2009): 14 suspected militants killed, then 10 more killed a few hours later
• Yemen (2012): 12 suspected militants killed, then 5 more killed a few days later
• Afghanistan (2013): 10 suspected Taliban fighters killed, then 5 more killed a few days later
